The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-3460

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Northern District of Iowa.

Frederick Douglas, * [PUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 18, 1996

 Filed: June 24, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Douglas, a former federal inmate, appeals the period of

supervised release imposed by the district court at resentencing. We

1

affirm.

Douglas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced to 120 months

imprisonment and three years supervised release. United States v. Douglas,

964 F.2d 738, 739 (8th Cir. 1992). After the district court denied his

motion to reduce his sentence, we remanded for resentencing according to

a clarifying Guidelines amendment. United States v. Douglas, 64 F.3d 450,

451-53 (8th Cir. 1995). 
-2-

At his September 1995 resentencing, Douglas's Guidelines range was

27 to 33 months, and the supervised release range was two to three years.

Because Douglas had already served 46 months in prison, he requested that

no supervised release be imposed, arguing that the time he had spent

imprisoned beyond the Guidelines range should "qualif[y] as an intensive

supervised release." The government requested that the court impose three

years of supervised release.

The district court sentenced Douglas to 33 months' imprisonment with

credit for time served, and two years supervised release. In imposing the

two-year term of supervised release, the court stated:

I think that Mr. Douglas should be given some credit for the

fact that he's actually served a sentence that's probably in

excess of what he would have otherwise have served in computing

supervised release, however, I'm not comfortable not putting

Mr. Douglas on any supervised release given the fact that he

has a history of committing offenses while on probation, and I

believe that some period of transition back to the community is

appropriate and that a two year term of supervised release is

the term to be imposed in this case.

Douglas was immediately placed on supervised release.

On appeal, Douglas argues that his imprisonment and supervised

release are separate parts of the same sentence for his offense conduct,

and that the excess prison time he served should be credited against his

supervised release term. Douglas cites cases from other circuits which

suggest that prison time served in excess of a defendant's revised sentence

can be credited against the defendant's term of supervised release. We

have reviewed these cases, and others not cited by the parties, and are not

persuaded they are correct.
-3-

Because Douglas was convicted of a Class C felony, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(3), the district court was without authority to impose a

supervised release term less than two years, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2)

(for Class C felony, supervised release term "shall" be at least two

years). 

The statute dealing with the release of a prisoner plainly states

that supervised release "commences on the day the person is released from

imprisonment," and "does not run during any period in which the person is

imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal . . . crime." See

18 U.S.C. § 3624(e); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (sentence may include term of

supervised release imposed after imprisonment); United States v. Watkins,

14 F.3d 414, 415 (8th Cir. 1994). We note that this is consistent with the

distinctly different purposes of imprisonment and supervised release. See

United States v. Love, 19 F.3d 415, 417 & n.4 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 115

S. Ct. 434 (1994); S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in

1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3306-08 (discussing purposes of supervised release,

one of which is to ease transition into community). 

We conclude that the district court properly imposed a two-year term

of supervised release. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.